§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.32 pm§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)I am grateful for the opportunity to make progress with my Adjournment debate, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will not be able to prevent me from doing so in the next half hour.
Wednesday 10 March was the 40th anniversary of the uprising in Lhasa, when the Chinese finally made clear their intention to rule Tibet with a rod of iron. I am grateful that today we have not just the Minister with us but, in the Public Gallery, representatives from the Tibetan community in this country, including Migyer Dorjee, a representative of his Holiness—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Order. Perhaps I might teach the hon. Gentleman something. He may not refer to anyone outside the Chamber, and that includes the Public Gallery.
§ Mr. BakerI was unaware of that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall respect it.
Since 1959, thousands of innocent Tibetans have been killed, imprisoned and tortured for no other reason than that they are Tibetan. The Chinese flag was raised for the first time in Lhasa on 23 March 1959—almost 40 years ago to the day. Within three days of the uprising, 10,000 Tibetans had been killed. Treasures from Tibet, especially from the monasteries, were looted and removed to China—in the same way as the Nazi Government in Germany behaved towards countries that they had invaded. By 1961, the land under cultivation had increased by 22.5 per cent. as a consequence of Chinese involvement, but Tibet suffered famine of epidemic proportions because grain was shipped out of Tibet to China. Tibetans starved in their thousands: so bad was the situation that parents were forced to feed their dying children with their own blood in an effort to keep them alive.
If that were not bad enough, the situation worsened with the onset of the cultural revolution, which affected Tibet as well as China. I could list statistic after statistic from that period, but suffice it to say that, before the Chinese decided to interfere in Tibet, there were more than 6,000 monasteries whereas, by the end of the cultural revolution, only five years later, there were only 13—a catalogue of destruction unimaginable in this country. Hundreds of works of art were destroyed—it seemed that everything Tibetan was up for destruction. The Tibetans are a religious people, but their religious places were used for keeping pigs in a deliberate attempt to denigrate Tibet's religion—contrary to the theoretical meaning of the Chinese constitution. In 1968, movement beyond house and field was forbidden, and Chinese officials' permission was required to collect firewood. By 1973, in just 14 years, one seventh of the Tibetan population had been killed as a consequence of the Chinese invasion.
Over the past 40 years, a policy of what can be described only as apartheid has been operated in Tibet. Electricity has been provided for the capital, but only in the Chinese quarters. Free medical care has been supplied for settlers, but only barefoot doctors are available for 1460 Tibetans. Food rations have been available for the whole population, but, when rationing is in place, the Chinese have received twice as much as Tibetans. All business has to be conducted in Chinese. Few Tibetans are in positions of power in Tibet, and those who are could be described as accomplices of the Chinese regime.
With my interest in the environment, I find the environmental damage that Tibet has suffered in the past 40 years horrifying. The Tibetans, as Buddhists, respect life in all its forms, but hitherto protected wildlife has been slaughtered to such an extent that formerly abundant species are now threatened with extinction. The snow leopard, the Himalayan monkey, wild yaks and gazelles are all on the brink of extinction as a consequence of Chinese involvement in Tibet. In addition, Tibet has been used as a convenient location for the dumping of nuclear waste. Deforestation continues apace, as the once prevalent Tibetan forests are cut down and the wood exported to China. That has not only destroyed the forests but has led to numerous environmental problems within Tibet. A once proud country has been raped and pillaged.
From 1977 to 1980, there was a slight improvement, and Hu Yaobang visited the country and admitted that mistakes had been made. However, it has all been downhill since then. In their own country, Tibetans continue to be second-class citizens, subject to arbitrary arrest and to torture with weapons such as electric batons. Ordinary Tibetans, whether or not they are monks or nuns, are subject to gross human rights abuses that no one in this world could possible defend. Such is the repression that it is now an offence to own or display a Tibetan flag. I have here a Tibetan flag and, by showing it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am committing a simple act which, if I were in Lhasa, would make me subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.
For monks and nuns to have pictures of the Dalai Lama in their monasteries is now an offence. The Dalai Lama is the religious leader of Tibet; how can the Chinese possible claim to respect human rights and religious freedom when they go to such lengths to prevent Tibetans from possessing even photographs? On numerous occasions since 1959, monks and nuns have been required to issue ritual denunciations of the Dalai Lama and to undertake all sorts of horrific acts to demonstrate those denunciations of their religious leader.
The Tibetans, who are a proud and brave people, continue their protests. The Chinese will never win the hearts and minds of Tibetans as long as they continue their current policies of repression. They cannot win in that way, so, instead, they are trying to win in a far more insidious way. China is operating a policy of mass migration of Han Chinese into Tibet, with the clear intention of making Tibetans a minority within their own country. That is nothing new for China: it did the same thing in places such as Mongolia.
By 1982, a third of Lhasa was occupied by Chinese. Today, Lhasa is a Chinese city. Much of the original city has been destroyed and replaced with grey, faceless 1950s buildings. The policy of deliberately making Tibetans a minority in their own country, treating them as second-class citizens and destroying their civilisation I can only describe—and it is not a word I use cavalierly—as genocide.
I turn briefly to the international perspective. I believe that Tibet is legally an independent country—that is not the position of the British Government, and the Minister 1461 will elaborate on that point—and that China is an occupying power. I could cite at length the history of Tibet's independence and I have gathered information from previous centuries to back my case. I do not have time to set it out in full detail.
In 1876, the Chefoo convention gave the United Kingdom the right to establish a trade mission in Tibet. The United Kingdom had signed a similar convention in 1858 relating to China. Therefore, by reaching a separate agreement with Tibet, the United Kingdom recognised that that country was not part of China. In 1894, the then Foreign Secretary, the Marquis of Salisbury, said:
If the Chinese ever had any authority in Tibet, they certainly have none now.At the very least, the British Government recognised Tibet's de facto independence from China.In 1904, the United Kingdom and Tibet signed the Lhasa convention. China objected, but the United Kingdom replied:
Tibet is not one of the 18 provinces of the Chinese Empire.Treaties have been signed by the United Kingdom and Tibet. China had no tax-raising powers in Tibet and had to pay taxes on its goods entering Tibet. How else do we define independence and sovereignty? Tibet conducted its own foreign policy. Those are the hallmarks of an independent country.China invaded Tibet in 1905. However, after the Chinese emperor was deposed in 1910, the Dalai Lama declared all ties broken and the last Chinese troops left Tibet in 1913. Between 1913 and 1959, there is no question but that Tibet operated as an independent country, with its own currency and stamps. When China declared that Tibet was part of China, British authorities in this country issued a formal protest about that declaration.
Britain plays an important role in relation to Tibet. When the 1959 uprising occurred, Britain was the only independent witness to that event. We have enjoyed long relations with Tibet and, in this century and the last, Britain has been closer than any other country to Tibet. Therefore, we have an historical duty to represent the views of the Tibetan people.
There are further indications that Britain recognised Tibet's independence. In 1914, the British signed an agreement with Tibet—the Simla convention. The British said:
the Chinese Government will of course lose all the privileges and advantages which the tripartite convention"—the alternative agreement—secures to them, including recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet; while the return of the Chinese Resident at Lhasa"—the Amban —will be postponed indefinitely and His Majesty's Government will render the Tibetans all possible assistance in resisting Chinese aggression.In 1921, Curzon, the then Foreign Minister, told the Chinese:We shall regard ourselves at liberty to deal with Tibet, if necessary, without again referring to China; to enter into closer relations with the Tibetans; to send an officer to Lhasa from time to time to consult the Tibetan Government … and to give Tibetans any reasonable assistance they might require in the development and protection of their country.1462 It is clear that the British, in the inter-war years, recognised Tibet as an independent country.When Tibet asserted her neutrality in the second world war, the British Foreign Office said:
The Tibetans have every moral right to their independence for which they have fought successfully in the past, and we are committed to support them in maintaining it".That is what the British Government said in 1942. They continued:For over 30 years (Tibetans) have enjoyed de facto independence and do not wish to be subjugated".I believe it is quite clear that Tibet is an independent country and that China is an occupying force. Because of our historical connections with Tibet, Britain can play an important role in clarifying that position and pushing for human rights improvements and the recognition of Tibet. The Government must take up that role.Unfortunately, for reasons of realpolitik, Tibet has been abandoned by the west since 1959. Tibet is not geographically important. It has no natural resources that the British, American and other western Governments need. It does not have the strategic importance of Kuwait. China is powerful, and there are other interests to consider, such as Hong Kong and trade relations.
The Government will never condone the human rights abuses in China. I acknowledge that they regularly make protests about those to the Chinese. They have genuinely tried to engage the Chinese in constructive dialogue and persuade them to change direction. As I said in an oral question to the Minister on Tuesday, I do not criticise that process in any way, but, unfortunately, the Chinese regard it as weakness. They have signed plenty of bits of paper in the past year to say that they will improve their human rights, but human rights have got worse in Tibet and China in that time. There has been no end to the invasion of Tibet by migrating Han Chinese. There has been no meeting with the Dalai Lama. In short, there has been no progress.
I should like the Minister to answer four questions in his reply. First, will the Government recognise that Tibet was independent before 1959 and that China is therefore an occupying power? Will the Minister admit that Tibet is not part of China? That is an important question.
Secondly, will the Government support a motion at the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights, due to take place on 22 March, condemning China, specifically mentioning Tibet, and pressing China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the United Kingdom in May?
Finally, will the UK demand, with our European Union partners, the immediate release of the Panchen Lama, who has been imprisoned, without justification, in mainland China? Will the Government further demand that independent witnesses from the EU or the Government be sent to verify that the Panchen Lama is still alive and healthy?
Tibet is a wonderful country, which has been dealt a bad hand in the past 40 years. This country has an historical relationship with Tibet that gives us a moral duty to do what we can to help those people.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on raising this issue and the way in which he put his arguments. I thank him for bringing to the House his concerns and those of others.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his understandable worries about the situation in Tibet. He knows that Tibet is, rightly, of concern to the wider public and Members of the House. As he said, the issue has been brought sharply into focus this week with the 40th anniversary of the exile from Tibet of the Dalai Lama. The hon. Gentleman's timing is extremely good.
The Government share the deep concerns expressed by many hon. Members and we are actively addressing them with the Chinese through our human rights dialogues and other contacts. Tibet features prominently in those discussions and in the points that we make about human rights. The hon. Gentleman said that, for reasons of realpolitik, western Governments have abandoned Tibet. That is not the case; we have not abandoned the people of Tibet, and we shall continue to express our concerns and raise many of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions, the first of which related to the status of Tibet. He knew the answer to the question even as he asked it, but it may be worth while putting on record again the position taken by successive UK Governments. They have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the policy of this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows—he expressed his regrets on this point—Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent. This Government and our predecessors have not recognised the Dalai Lama's government in exile. However, we believe strongly that the Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs, and we have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identities of the Tibetan people. The hon. Gentleman rightly made several powerful points about the way in which those distinct identities have been undermined in the past four decades.
We do not recognise the Dalai Lama as the head of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, but we do acknowledge him as a highly respected spiritual leader, the winner of the Nobel peace prize and an important and influential force. He has visited the United Kingdom several times, and we look forward to his visit in May when he will be met at an appropriate level by members of the Government.
The best way to achieve a lasting solution to the situation in Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without any preconditions. We continue to urge China to enter into such a dialogue. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited China in October last year, he raised the question of Tibet and our concerns about human rights and put forward the points that I have just made about the need for a dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, involving the Dalai Lama.
We have also expressed many deep concerns to the Chinese about the situation in Tibet. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of them. They include the "re-education" of monks and nuns in Tibet, under which some, as he 1464 said, are reported to be required to renounce their loyalty to the Dalai Lama. We have also expressed our concern about the reported restrictions on the display of the Dalai Lama's picture and the use of the Tibetan flag, which the hon. Gentleman also highlighted. We have raised all those issues in our dialogue with the Chinese.
China's recent atheist propaganda campaign has also given us cause for concern. We most certainly believe that the Chinese should see religion as fulfilling a basic human need and right. Religion should never be seen as a threat. Again, I give the hon. Gentleman a clear commitment that we shall continue to raise such matters.
We are also concerned about the future of the special ethnic, cultural and religious characteristics of Tibet in light of the conditions there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned reports of the migration of a significant number of Han Chinese to the Tibet Autonomous Region. Again, we wish the essential characteristics of Tibetan culture to be maintained, not subverted and undermined.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Panchen Lama. The detention in 1995 of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima raises particular concerns. The boy, who will be only 10 years old in April, was detained following his recognition in 1995 by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, the second highest religious figure in Tibet. The UK Government are not in a position to hold a view on the child's candidacy as the Panchen Lama—that is clearly a matter for the Tibetans alone to decide—but he is just a child, and we are concerned about his welfare. We have repeatedly asked the Chinese to be allowed to visit him to check on his well-being. Regrettably, this request has not been granted by China. We shall continue to raise his case and that of other Tibetans with the Chinese at each and every opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the positions adopted by this Government. It might be worth while to remind him, although I do not think that he has forgotten, of the special initiative that we took during our presidency of the EU. For the first time, a delegation of EU Troika ambassadors in Beijing made a week-long visit to Tibet in May last year to make an assessment of the situation there. We were pleased that that took place during the British presidency. The delegation was led by the British ambassador and was supported by a British Tibetan speaker, which was in itself an important innovation and precedent. As a result of that visit, the European Union as a whole agreed some common guidelines for addressing the issue of Tibet. It may be useful if I list them.
The first guideline was to urge China to respect human rights in Tibet. The second was to encourage China to begin talks with the Dalai Lama. The third was to target development assistance for ethnic Tibetans to help them to compete and survive in the economy. The fourth was to seek to preserve the Tibetan language and culture.
I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will recognise that Europe and the United Kingdom are supporting the human rights dialogue with practical co-operation. While in Tibet, the EU Troika ambassadors visited Pa Nam, the site of a £5.1 million EU rural development project. That project will directly benefit indigenous Tibetan people by providing employment, training and access to land. Britain alone will contribute about 15 per cent. of the costs of that project. The Government are also providing development assistance to Tibet through the Save the Children projects in education and health, so we are 1465 pleased that the Troika ambassadors' visit took place. It was a welcome visit, and it was a welcome initiative on our part.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our overall approach to the issue of human rights and the forthcoming meetings in Geneva. Perhaps I may take a few minutes to put those in context. Since the successful handover of sovereignty in Hong Kong in July 1997, the Government have succeeded in placing our relations with China on a new, more constructive basis. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to China last year strengthened that relationship. We shall continue to build on it and we look forward to welcoming President Jiang Zemin to the United Kingdom in the autumn.
As part of that relationship, we are addressing our human rights concerns in a variety of ways. We have raised them directly with the Chinese Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister did so when they met Chinese leaders during their visits to China last year. I will do so when I visit China next month. We do so regularly with the Chinese ambassador in London. We shall continue to press the Chinese Government to live up to the standards of the international covenants that they have signed—a process that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The two processes—dialogue and the raising of specific cases—are often regarded as mutually exclusive. They are not. We have been able to express our concerns about individual cases—about what we would see as the violation of human rights—and to place those in the overall dialogue. We feel that that may well be the most constructive way to proceed. However, I emphasise that dialogue is not an end in itself. It must be a means to achieve an improvement in human rights in China—otherwise, the dialogue has no purpose. It is a vehicle for achieving change.
As a result of the dialogue, there have been some improvements in China, but there have been some very disappointing recent developments there about which we have expressed, and shall continue to express, our deep concerns.
Twelve positive steps have emerged from the dialogue, and it is worth remembering them and considering how much progress we could have made without the dialogue. In October 1997, China signed the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. In October 1998, China signed the international covenant on civil and political rights. In September 1998, there was the visit to China and to Tibet by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. There was the visit to China and to Tibet by the UN working group on arbitrary detention. An invitation was extended to the UN special rapporteur on torture, who also visited China.
1466 Chinese agreement was given to report separately on Hong Kong under the two international covenants. The EU Troika ambassadors visited Tibet. Discussions took place with the Chinese on issues of serious human rights concerns, including individual cases, the death penalty, conditions of detention and Tibet. There was collaboration on the EU-China human rights co-operation programme, which includes projects in the areas of civil and political rights as well as economic and social rights, and those activities have been funded by the European Commission. There have been two EU-China legal affairs seminars, and a seminar on the rights of women. The Chinese accepted participation in the dialogue of critical western non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International. Finally, Chinese prosecutors have shown suspects a card describing human and basic rights in court proceedings.
Those are signs of the progress that we have made. We must decide in Geneva—we want European Union member states to take the decision together—whether we can achieve more by other means. It is a tactical not a principled question. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I share very much the same agenda.
§ Mr. BakerI am grateful to the Minister for approaching this productively. When China signed the international covenant on civil and political rights in October 1998, China Daily said:
It is not that China's stance or policies on the issue of human rights have changed … rather that the belated favourable turn in the international atmosphere has created an opportunity for China to elaborate its perspectives".I am very concerned that China is signing bits of paper but changing nothing.
§ Mr. FatchettI understand that concern; we seek change. As I said, we are wedded not to the process but to the outcomes. That is why the question becomes tactical. China's signing into the international human rights regime is important in itself. It is a statement in itself, on which we must build. From the process to which I have referred, we never expected overnight, dramatic changes. The process is a long one, and we are committed to it.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the hon. Gentleman and those who have a real interest in the future of Tibet and its people that this Government share many of their concerns. We are active on those concerns, and will continue to raise them on behalf not just of individual Lobby groups or Members of Parliament but of the United Kingdom Government. That forms a central part of our dialogue on human rights and, because of it, to return to a phrase used by the hon. Gentleman, we will not forget Tibet. Tibet forms an essential and central part of what we are trying to do on human rights.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock